Muhammed was a brilliant intuitive leader/general, and he and his companions devised a near perfect closed system of war aginst the rest of humanity. Only by showing that Allah is not infallible can we be victorious in keeping our freedom, our life, our liberty and pursuit of our happiness. Muslims are extremely childish in their view of themselves and the world - they are superstitious and thus afraid of dogs, of the Koran getting dirty etc. They continually tell us the truth about their paranoia, and their intentions. Therefore, one of the best tactics for us to take in the War on Terror is to mock them and exploit their childishness, so that they will expose themselves to everyone.

The Judeo-Christian, Western culture is based on guilt, and Muslims exploit this by playing on our guilt complex. The Arab-Islamic culture is based on shame. It's time we learn to play on their shame, just as they do on our guilt. They feel humiliated and paranoid about everything. In defense of their egos and by extention their religion they do stupid things, such as the London bombings and sharing the beheading videos with the rest of the world. While these tactics are successful in terrorizing people, they also alert Western people and other infidels that Islam may not be the "religion of peace and tolerance" that it claims to be.

There are a few issues central and vital to Islam and on which it is really vulnerable on, such as women's emancipation. If Islam really does go for it, Islam is dead. If it doesnt then its dead in the long run. The most important and valuable soldiers of Islam are not male Jihadis, but women. Muslim women are the frontline soldiers of Islam in the West, as they were in Bosnia. However, women are also the Achilles heel of Islam. Give young Muslim girls in the West, the legal power that they do not have to follow the dictats of the imams or the mullahs, or give them the notion that they can report mullahs for religious harassment, then one starts a chain reaction that continues into the home and community. The French ban on hijabs in schools is the right first step.

The Jihadis have a clear moral purpose, and we have to need to define an even more powerful moral argument as to why our cause is more just, more moral and better - not just to our public, whose unwavering support we need, but to many Muslims around the world. Once we have such a clear moral purpose, then indeed we can go to full scale war, if that is needed. What is the magic formula that will mobilise us, give us a clear moral superiority that will sustain us through thick and thin?

It should be done by giving Islam its proper name: Slavery and apartheid. Women are the slaves in the cult of Islam (submission = slavery). One peculiar thing about male supremacy or any form of slavery, is that it enslaves both parties. Muslim men should realise, that the emancipation of women also emancipates and frees men. This has been the lesson in the West. And so it has continued. Thus Muslim men should not be frightened in letting go - they will also be freeing themselves from the chains of islam. This inevitably leads us to ask, can we somehow re-define Islam, in particular for a Western audience, not as a religion but as a political ideology, and one whose tenets are sufficiently evil, so that it merits destruction, much as Nazism. This construct has to take place so that the Western populace sees it as justifiable to actually give the physical and moral support that is required for such a large undertaking. In passing it is worth noting the political difficulty that Bush and Blair are having in Iraq in sustaining political support for the war, once they had proclaimed that Islam is a RoP - they had conceded the moral ground.

Islam is institutionalised slavery, and the Jihad's main purpose is to garner slaves, both men and women, from the lands of the Free. Muslims, both men and women, then become the first slaves of Islam. Two points come to mind immediately. 1. The institution of slavery crushes the spirit of slaves. They were unable to think for themselves as a consequence. A striking feature of Islamic societies. 2. Runaway slaves used to be beaten, and oft executed, as a lesson to other would be runaway slaves. The same punishment is Islamically sanctioned for the Muslim apostate.

Many practices of the rituals of Islam are completely out of variance with what is tolerable in the West. I hope that in Europe, we adopt fairly stringent rules on where one can wear the hijab. Certainly in these days of video surveillance, the wearing of the hijab or burqa, can be seen as trying to circumvent a public safety requirement. Schools, universities, airports and government offices must be declared places where one is not allowed to smoke (on grounds of personal safety) or wear the burqa (on grounds of public safety). All these make the West an inhospitable environment for Islam, which is all to the good.

Islam is a way of life for a tribal and nomadic culture. Each tribe guarded its patch and at the same time engaged in raids against other tribes for booty and women (same thing). Mohammed's significant contribution was to codify a disparate code extending over several tribes into a single one. A similar thing was achieved by Genghis Khan, and in much the same way, was eminently successful in expanding the domain of his empire of booty. Through history there has been conflict between settled or agricultural communities who invented agriculture, and the nomadic one. Settled communities eventually had surplus and were able to devote more time to other pursuits that led to civilisation. The nomadic culture OTH depended on raids and the ensuing booty. Islam would have died away had it not been so succesful in mixing the divine and the nomadic culture, which led to conquest of settled and prosperous communities, and then living off the proceeds of empire. Civilisation of the settled communities though marched on and the empire of the nomad came to an end when the Ottoman empire was dissolved. Islam was in the process of withering away as a consequence but for a couple "miracles" that saved Islam's bacon.

First was the oil bonanza, and the second, the far more important one - the open door policy of the West as regards immigration. Immigration of muslims is really an invasion, an invasion that had been stopped for good but for the cupidity of Western politicians in allowing millions of Muslims into the West. Now we have to live with the horrendous consequences of those decisions. We are being dragged back to the Middle ages where religion was the decisive factor in political discourse. Muslims live by the islamic code ie the nomadic code. One sees this in the way that islamic areas in the West become ghettos in quick time- it is part and parcel of the nomad way of life, as he simply ups tent when the resources have run out and moves to greener pastures - in this context, where the benefits are more generuous. Through history one has seen that the nomadic life style and the settled life are diametrically opposed. When both are forced to live side by side, as we are now doing in the West, a severe clash is inevitable.

Some claim that Islam will die as a global force during this century, simply because its core ideas aren't flexible enough to adapt to a modern world. This pre-supposes that Islam will have to rely on its own tenets. Islam is basically parasitical, and will continue to survive on the back of the rest of humanity as long as we allow it to do so. The roots of Jihad have been invigorated primarily due to immigration to the West and Saudi money. The only way that islam will die out, is if it is contained within dar-ul-Islam. No immigration and all contact reduced to the necessary. This will buy time. Solutions like making them fight among each other, pushing Muslims all out of Europe etc. is buying time - future generations still have to solve the problem. There is nothing wrong with buying time - the advent of the modern age and technologies like TV/cable/Internet MIGHT slowly eat away at Islam and slowly solve the problem. The problem is still whether the time taken by the modern world to penetrate inside Islam will be too long for the world to survive.

Ending the problem for good would require large parts of the opinion makers of the world recognizing that Islam is not a "religion" but an "ideology". Once that is done then the ideology would have to be tackled on all levels just like Communism. However, attaining the "moral high ground" is good and necessary, but will not by itself be enough. Who ever won a war while trying not to hurt the enemy’s feelings? The playing field will NEVER be level. Islam fights from Heaven. You cannot change that fact, for devout Muslims. There is no higher place than heaven. Muslims have no need for a level field. They, according to their Koran is the word of God. There is no "high ground" that we can occupy, in regards to Islam, in the eyes of Muslims, only in our own. The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the "moral high ground" in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. In the end, it is possible that we will win or lose by the sword. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological war with force on certain occasions. Holding a higher moral standard isn't going to defeat an Iranian President with nukes, threatening another Holocaust.

Islam also teaches Muslims to see themselves as part of a nation of Muslims who happen to live in different countries – even in non-Muslim ones. Their loyalty to the nation state is subordinated to the loyalty to the Ummah. This is so even if they are second or third generation British or American or whatever. Each new generation will be taught by Islam to maintain its primary loyalty to the Ummah. Even new converts switch loyalty. In World War IV, the US has handicapped itself by making false declarations such as “Islam is peace”. All world wars have at least three components – the military, ideological and the economic. In World War III, the ideological component was more important than the military one. In World War I and II, it was the military component that was more important. Yet by praising Islam, Bush and Blair have already given up the ideological warfare without firing a shot.

You cannot defeat Islamism without defeating Islam. It is like trying to fight Communism while praising Marxist economic theories! In the Cold War, the US and its allies did not hesitate to argue that Marxism is a false ideology. Marx's ideas are wrong and cannot lead mankind to a better future. The democratic world must make the same case against Islam. Otherwise, we cannot win without relying heavily on the military component, which means more bloodshed. Perhaps we cannot win at all. Remember what Sun Wu said in his classic, “The Art of War”. The side with the higher moral standing is more likely to win. To do this, a leader must convince his people that their cause is just. You cannot persuade your people to make exertions if they do not understand what they are up against. Thus the burden of ideological warfare falls on groups like FFI.

Islam is a warrior’s creed that served its early followers well. From impoverished desert tribes, they rose to forge an empire in a short time that stretched from Spain to India. The ethos it engendered – brotherhood for believers, contempt and hatred for non-believers, belief in heavenly rewards for fallen warriors, a high fertility rate (which requires the subordination of women), blind obedience – created formidable warriors. But these same qualities are handicaps for Muslims in the age of the microchip. Today they lead to poverty, belligerency, war and defeat. Many Muslims look back with fondness to their days of glory and try to recover their former days by using the old methods. That is why there is today a rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism across the Muslim world. They are bewildered at their weakness and look for conspiracy theories. Muslims think their failure is due to some Jewish or American plot not realizing that failure comes from within themselves. They are out of touch with reality. Once were warriors, Muslims are now like Don Quixote tilting at windmills in a world they no longer understand.

6 Comments:

Sorry for the OT - but here is an idea for another workshop (if you have the time)

What practical steps can be taken by regular folk about Islam?Not everyone of us is as capable as Bat Yeor or Robert Spencer et. al. We may not have the ability or time to make the kind of contribution they make, but we would still like to contribute in some small way - apart from just venting on blogsHere are a couple of ideas1. Make a list of libraries in Norway (or any other country) with addresses and telephone numbers. Make a list of critical books like the ones by Bat Year or Robert Spencer/Serge Trifkovic. Check up each library on the web and see which of these books they do not have. Make an Excel spreadsheet with the Library Name as the row and the book name as the column. Mark out the books which are not in each library and encourage your readers to donate the remaining books to their local library (buy with cash and put in the book drop with a postit saying donation- so not traceable). Set up an email account so that anybody who buys one for his local library can send a message to update the spreadsheet. It would just require one blogger in each country.2. You could ask the Norwegian Friends of America (or similar organization for each country) to fund the translation of Bat Yeors (or any other author) books into Norwegian. Since they are in America there would be no PC barriers.

I would not have posted this comment on this thread but you might be going anyday now so I just put it here.

You wrote"Islam would have died away had it not been so succesful in mixing the divine and the nomadic culture, which led to conquest of settled and prosperous communities, and then living off the proceeds of empire."

This is very true, Before Islam nomadic tribes would invade India, and over time they would get absorbed into the Hindu Civilization, it was only after Islam came that this pattern ended. It is primarily because of the Islamic ideology.I think that even in Europe the Huns eventually settled and became Hungary. Robert Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly which point to soemthing similar out hereThe Lawless Frontier

Weak points? There are so many! I would like to share my thoughts and experiences with Muslims. For several months I have tried to reason with them about their religion, their prophet and the issue of Islam in the world. Here are a few topics I think are relevant:

Point 1. First of all there is the issue of current events. Where Muslims dominate you have oppression, discrimination, lack of basic freedoms. I won’t do into details, all one needs to do is look at the TV and read newspapers, or better, follow things in the Internet. Islamic countries are among the most repressive, intolerant and undemocratic on the planet. Be aware of how they treat (or mistreat) their minorities and even sects of Islam. It isn’t a pretty picture. No wonder they want out. So they come to the West and …

Point 2. And there is the issue of Muslim immigration. When Muslims move to the West in numbers, they take their hate and anger with them. Again, without going into details, all that is needed to follow current events (London, Paris, Sydney, Amsterdam, etc…). More on this below in Point 9.

Point 3. Contrary to what Mr. Bush says, Islam is not a religion of peace (unless he meant “pieces” of bodies). There are so many evils that seem to be associated with Muslims – to name a few: honor killings, FGM - female genital mutilation, forced marriages, polygamy, slavery, wife beating, stonings, domestic abuse, beheadings, bombings, beatings, oppression of other religious groups, oppressions of women (in so many ways: dress, education, legal status, work opportunities, etc…), terror, racial and ethic discrimination, denial of opportunities, class privilege, and so on…. Don’t let anybody say these are “isolated” cultural practices, because they are not. They are much more widely practiced then Muslims want to admit. I recommend that you read blogs of people in Islamic countries. Speaking of Islamic countries, research about how Muslims treat minority groups and religions where they dominate. Look at the human rights situation in those nations.

Point 4. Most of all, Islam is characterized by: a. hate and anger, and b. denial. The hate and anger occurs at different levels, often it is subconscious and a product of a deep internal frustration and resentment. Because, by definition, Islam is perfect, they must place the blame elsewhere, and so, it is the Crusaders fault, the imperialists, Israel,. The Jews, America, Bush, Feminism, Liberalism, democracy, the corrupting influence of Western society, Hollywood, Bugs Bunny, racism, Christianity, and so on. You may not know it, but these all are waging war on Islam. Everybody is at fault but hardly ever Muslims and never Islam. On another level the hate is open; it is preached in the Quran, Hadiths, in Islamic literature, and by Imams in the Mosques. In most Western language Internet this aspect is played down, but in Muslim language sites (Arabic and others) it is out in the open.

Point 4a. About hate and anger. Most of the troubles with Muslims can be traced directly to the Quran and Old Mo. Words like "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam" (Koran8:39) and "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" (Koran 48:29) leave little room for doubt. Islamic terrorists are simply following the precepts of their prophet. They are practicing their understanding of Islam. Even if hate is not open and declared, it exists in the contempt and dislike for Western culture and its people. Take the recent events in Sydney and Paris, for example. In these cases Islam is not the cause of the riots per se, but it is an enabling agent, or catalyst, that makes these events possible and gives them meaning. The teachings of Islam provide the intellectual and moral basis for the hate and alienation found in Muslims, which lead to events of intolerance and violence that are characteristic of Islam. These groups of young people do not act in the name of Islam, but have in their Islamic heritage the roots of their rejection of common values and their isolation from the larger society. They may not be experts in Islam, but they know enough about it to absorb Islamic attitudes toward infidels that manifest themselves in their behavior. And then again, you have things like this at Islam_QA: Please read what Muslims who live in the West are supposed to teach their children about their host countries: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=70256&dgn=4 "You should instill a hatred for this culture (the West) and its ways in the hearts of your children" (Question 70256, item 8)

Point 4b. About denial – I could write a book. The simple fact is that Muslims refuse to contemplate the words and accounts in their own scriptures. The Quran is full of verses promoting hatred towards different kinds of infidels. Yes, there are some verses that say “nice” things, but there as many that say otherwise, so at the very least the Koran is inconsistent, vague and poorly written. The Hadiths are even worse. From these traditions we find that Mohammud and his gang of thugs were haters, murderers, torturers, slavers, wife-beaters and so on…

Muslims will pretend that events described in the Quran and Hadiths do not exist. Yes, they will quote them to prove a point, however when one points out the evil acts also recorded, they become irrelevant or, more often, the Muslim turns into a zombie – his/her eyes glaze over and suddenly they cannot hear or speak. It is like “Night of the living Dead”. This pattern of hate, violence, inconsistency and denial is a bloody river that runs through the life of Mohammed, across the pages of the Koran and into the lives of Muslims – and it is now overflowing into the West.

Now let me say a word in defense of our Muslim friends. For most of us in the West, being honest about a belief or religion is easy. It is a matter of saying "Oops" and then following up (an apology, change of opinion, new political party, resigning from an association, new church, no church, etc..) It is not a big deal most of the time. It can be difficult for some, but it is doable. For a Muslim to admit that Islam is wrong, or that it contains deep dark aspects of hate, anger and intolerance - well that is not easy! Nobody wants to admit that their great hero is a low-life murderer and torturer, and takes 9 year old girls playing with dolls to his bed. For Muslims to be honest, they must be willing to make a sacrifice, and I mean a big sacrifice. And I am not talking about hurt feelings, or even having to admit that they supported a belief and a man that espouse oppression and hate. It is much worse! Often it means they must give up job, friends, worldly goods, social position and even family, or their own life.

My argument is very simple: When I read a passage that says Mohammud's followers killed an old woman (Asma) for criticizing him, I want them to say "Gee, he had an old woman killed." When I read from the Quran and its says that a man can rape his married female slaves, I want them to say "Yes, it says a Muslim can have sex with his married female slaves when he wants." When I read verses like "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam" (8:39) and Koran "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" (48:29) or even the famous "kill them wherever you find tem ) I want to Muslims to look at me and say "Yes, old man, that is real mean. I can understand why you are offended."

Point 5. About Mohammed. He was not a nice guy! Quote: Mohammed says… “Why is it, O ‘A’isha (his 9 year old wife!) that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain……. ,” Muslim 4:2127.(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127)Quote: Then the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (ie. rocky land). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died…” (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html)Read verse 261 Yes, they were thieves, but….Quote: “The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301. (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301)Quote : “The military expeditions (Ghazawat, literally raid) in which the Messenger personally participated were twenty-six. Some say there were twenty-seven.” Tabari IX:118 “The armies and raiding parties sent by the Messenger of Allah between the time he came to Medina and his death (ten years) was forty-eight.” Tabari IX:115. The accounts tell of the plunder and taking slaves, of giving captured women to the Prophet’s men. The writer was especially proud of the raids where the caravans and villages were taken by surprise.Quote: “And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess (your slaves). It is a decree of Allah for you.” (The Koran, Muslim 4:24) Can anybody justify this?

There are dozens of verses that tell of unprovoked attacks, horrible torture (like building a fire on a man’s chest, for example), wife beatings, slavery, rape of married women, disrespect for women, murders for petty reasons (like the killing of Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan and her 5 children by the prophet's men – do a Google on that!) and so on.. The list goes on and on. Notice the references and the links to Islamic sites. This is the man Muslims consider to be a “great” example. There are some great sites that expose the nefarious life of this man, such as “faithfreedom” and “prophet of doom.”

Point 6. Then debating with Muslims, you must refer to the hadiths. They are the “traditions” of Mohammed and early Islam. From them one can get a good idea of how Islam is to be “practiced”. Do not let Muslims tell you they do not accept these accounts. The fact is that the Hadiths are accepted as sacred by almost all Muslims. Here are five quotes about the authority of these writings: “Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them (Quran and Sunnah). Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet...” (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html)“This thorough authentication process ensures that these accounts (the Hadiths) are real, validated narrations of the sayings, actions, and tacit approvals of the Prophet Muhammad. (http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=106)“These (hadiths) are the real explanation, interpretation, and the living example of the Prophet (...) for teachings of the Qur'an.” (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/)The Shareeah, which is embodied (in) the Quran and Sunnah, are the proclamations of Allah and His Messenger (...) ...it is obligatory for every Muslim to obey any command that he hears from Allah or His Messenger (...), even if the command should go against his own desires, opinion or against popular opinion. (http://www.iisca.org/articles/document.jsp?id=65)“To be a true Muslim, the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (...) must be followed. The sources of information about the Sunnah are found in Hadith...” (http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=141)

Note: The first biographers of Muhammad were Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari; they provide the only authoritative history of his life. Later, Bukhari put together a collection of Hadiths/traditions which are regarded almost as valid as the Qur’an. These three historians provide the original information we have about Muhammad and early Islam. In 830 AD Ibn Hisham wrote a censured version: "I am omitting things which Ishaq recorded in this book. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people." Ishaq:691. All modern day biographies are even more "cleaned-up’.

For over 4 months I went to dozens of sites, I quoted the hadiths, I pointed out to Muslims these passages that described the evil acts by their dear prophet. I asked them to recognize and admit that the man was bad. Not one would do so. The best answer I got was that the passages were “problematic” (at altmuslim.com). Very often my postings were deleted, no matter how nice I tried to be. Muslims do not want to known about these things. I even asked tried to get Muslims, even if they do not accepts those accounts, just to tell me that if they understood what the verses said. I said something like this: “OK, you do not accept that Mohammed had people tortured, but at least tell me that if the text says that the men were brutally tortured” and “Do you agree that this hadiths says that Mohammed beat Alisha (his favorite wife) and she said that it caused her pain?”. I even asked one Muslims Just to type the words “The text appears to say that Mohammed had people tortured. No luck. No luck at all. I could not even get a single Muslims to tell me in plain words what the sentences said. Now that is denial! I am telling you this to that all of you will understand how hard it is to reason with a Muslim when it comes to their prophet and the Koran. Logic does not apply.

Point 7. Coherence and consistency are also not Islam’s strong points. Muslims can ignore and explain away anything. There are no words to convey the extent to which Muslims will deny reality or use the most absurd excuses in their arguments. Thus we have Islamic articles starting with words “No Compulsion in Religion” and ending with “the law of execution will apply” (http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/religion/comp_religion.htm) or that declare that “Islam means Peace” (http://www.discoverislam.com/poster.asp?poster=DIP2004_24&page=1) when the word means ‘submission’. Muslims can write “Under no circumstances is violence against women encouraged or allowed” (http://www.isna.net/services/library/papers/dv/EndingDomesticViolenceinMuslimFamilies1.html)and on the same site they quote: “As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) do not share their beds, (and last) beat (tap) them (lightly)” (http://www.isna.net/services/dv/imamcorner/). Just as bad, this is a distorted translation, even so some sites say this is a “safeguard” for women (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=544). (ex: the concept of slavery should be regarded as a concept of mercy, as the heinous crime of rejecting Allah demands immediate death, from http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=1928). Consider cases like this: http://www.muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm about how Muslims in Canada want the right to kill apostates/blasphemers under Islamic sharia law. Read this also: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s892997.htm

And just when you think you have seen everything, you find things like this: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?search_text_box_dsn4=23445&lv=browse&formtrans=dgn%3D4%7C&ln=eng&ds=qa&sensitivity=2&searchquestions=1&searchtitles=1&searchanswers=1&searchsources=1&pg=result&offset=0&msubmit=1&submit.x=45&submit.y=5(Q&A number 23445 at http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng ). It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic.

Point 8. About women. Muslims like to claim that Islam exalts women, even as they are required to wear blankets, stay home, not drive or enter the back door of mosques and share a segregated side room with other women during sermons. Remember, Muslim men are told to beat their wives (Surah 4.34), and Islam’s great prophet says women are deficient in intelligence http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301. I would like to refer to the UNs "Arab Human Development Report 2002" (look it up on the Internet, please!), written by Arab experts about the discrimination and prejudice against women in the Arab (ie, Muslim) world. It addresses the widening gaps in freedom, women's empowerment and knowledge in the Middle East.According to altmuslim.com the number of mosques in the US that segregate women behind partitions or in backrooms has increased considerably. Also, see what is happening to women in Egypt:http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/2005/07/egyptian-women-emancipation-egyptian.htmlA good, honest source about the status of women under Islam is Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s blog at http://www.ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/.

Rape especially is a something that seems to characterize Islam. We all know of events in Europe (do a Google search with terms like “Rape” “Muslims” “Europe” or substitute “rape” for “crime”. Australia, not to mention Coptic women abducted (http://www.copts.net/demands.asp) or hindu women taken for wives against their will (http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2005/november/123248.htm). Domestic abuse is a very big problem is the Islamic community, much bigger than in Western societies.

Point 9. About immigration and assimilation.

First of all let me make clear that the massive immigration of Muslims to the West is a new phenomena that has only occurred in the last generation. Before that it was Europeans, Asians or even Africans (against their will). Prior to the 1960s when immigrants came from Muslim countries, it was mostly Christians escaping the evils and discrimination they suffered under Islam and Sharia.

Understand also that the rules have changed - 100 years ago a family would move and they had to integrate. Now with multiculturalism, welfare and technology, this is different. A group can live, work, worship and even hate, and live side by side with another group. When people praise past immigration (as in the US or Australia) they are talking about a world that no longer exists. It is like the generals planning for the last war. Things have changed, but the politicians and intellectuals don't know it.

Welfare now makes immigrants independent of work and responsibility. Multiculturalism makes them immune from OFFICIAL criticism and discourages integration. Modern technology means they can live in the West like they never left home (and even eat their favorite Pakistani dishes or watch their favorite Imam in Old Arabia on TV telling them to hate the infidels). It is a whole new world. The effects of globalism, new communication technology and mass migrations are so many and so deep that they are beyond any individual's understanding. This is a dangerous mixture one day and it will explode. Boom.

Point 10 Conclusion.

The fact is that things will get worse. Muslims cannot integrate and live side by side (in numbers) with other people, and still be good Muslims. Read the Quran and the hadiths. They are very clear as to the preferred relationship between Muslims and infidels. When the number of Muslims reaches a certain level (the point of no return) they will start their jihad. (Note: jihad means Holy War 99% of the time; it only means ‘inner struggle’ when Muslims are explaining it to stupid infidels. This distortion of reality in Islam is known as the doctrine of Al-taquiya - deception). If fact, some consider immigration to be a low level jihad. First it will be just demands, then a little crime, then more demands, then fights, then a riot, then murders, and then more riots and finally full-scale war. It will get ugly. I wish I could believe otherwise. Yes there are good Muslims, but not enough to make a difference. Most of them are either indifferent and/or in denial, so the radicals will win, as they always do in Islamic societies. They, after all, practice the "pure" Islam and they have the Quran, the hadiths and especially the example of Mohammud on their side. All the moderates can do is make excuses and pretend this has nothing to do with Islam.

We must fight to our liberties, especially the freedom of conscious and speech. The ability to criticize Islam and Muslims (or anybody else) for what they say and do is part of the freedoms we hold dear, and for anybody (the media, government, speech codes, PC educators, etc…) to write this off as racism, hate speech, vilification or prejudice is to deny our right to express ourselves. If the facts are true, why the effort to silence those who speak out against the vile ideology of Islam? Take away the liberty of expression and you have nothing (as is the case in so many Islamic countries).As I have pointed out so often, Muslims cannot be honest about their religion and their dear prophet. To get along with Muslims and “respect” them, you must also be dishonest about these things. You must ignore the hate and anger in their writings and you must ignore the many vile acts and often vulgar life of Mohammed.

To get along with Muslims you must be willing to apply different (inferior) standards to their speech and conduct; and pretend that their faith, laws, customs and practices (particularly in Muslim dominated countries) are admirable and deserving of respect. You must be willing to make excuses and accept generalized, gross violations of human rights as minor aberrations by a few insignificant individuals. You must be willing to accept words and actions that, if practiced by individuals of western culture, would be resoundingly condemned in a minute. This is a form of cultural racism in a way - a bigotry of low expectations and double standards if you wish.

This use of different standards for different people is the essence of multiculturalism. Well actually, the basic ideology advocated by Multiculturalists is that Western culture is evil and everything else is great. You may criticize any and everything about European heritage and history (fine with me!), but you must not only overlook the shortcomings and failures of other societies and not even talk about them, you must even go so far as to distort facts and ignore history to make them feel good (not a good idea!). That is Multiculturalism.

Understand that Islam is a problem everyone faces, not just Israel, America, Holland, etc.. Consider the news. Riots in France, the Copts in Egypt, Iran wants to kill 4 million people, bombings in India and Turkey, terror in Spain, beheadings of 3 Christian girls in Indonesia. What do these events have in common? Why don’t Muslims ever ask why? Why? Denial! This problem is not going away.

There are no easy answers. Violence is not the solution; it only takes one side down to the level of the other. Yes, speaking out may create resentment and radicalize some Muslims, but to remain silent is worse, and wrong. To continue under the current policy of asinine political correct multiculturalism is to add fuel to the fire. In my opinion, forget banning headscarves or the hajib, the best we can do is be honest with Muslims about their religion. Tell them the things they do not want to hear or even think about. Show them the verses from their scriptures that proclaim hate and anger to non-Muslims. Show them the repulsive deeds performed by their prophet Mohammed - a man they consider to be a great "example". Tell them you are offended! Demand that they explain these verses. Do not accept anything but absolute honesty.

This is the best way to deal with this issue. Even so, this may not be enough. We cannot change Islam, only Muslims can do that, but they are in denial, so it will not change. Bad times are a-coming.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses.

I apologize for the length of this post, but this issue is one of life, liberty and happiness.

Signed, John Arthur aka old kactuz

PS: Much of this material is from my posting as these sites:http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3830http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3876http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3856http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=152http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3778http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=1926http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3447http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1486_0_25_0_C35http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/?p=322#commentshttp://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=19268&show=history

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the judeo/christian version becomes nul and void and we are wasting our time and resources ie we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against islam the religion of abraham,moses, jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

This passages are central to islam/chritianity/judaism.

GENESIS 16:16And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.GENESIS 21:5Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

At Genesis 22 abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted ishmael names for issac!!

THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.

PLEASE GIVE A STRAIGHT FORWARD REPLY

GENESIS:21:14 - 21

So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the child.” And as she sat over against him, the child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink. And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.

AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST.For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites:

http://www.al-sunnah.com/muhammad_in_the_bible.htm (MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm (Quran and Science)http://www.harunyahya.com/http://www.barnabas.net/http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htmhttp://www.islamicity.com/http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml